Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Execution and reliability
35% weight
Check volume and accuracy of routine technical work: equipment calibration logs, stock and consumables ordering, ticket queues in Jira or Freshservice, test rig setup, weekly report turnaround.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.
2
Needs Improvement
Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.
4
Very Good
Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.
5
Excellent
Names throughput figures, kept calibration and maintenance records current, and cleared assigned tickets or setups without chasing from supervisors.
02
Evaluation factor
Improving the process
25% weight
Probe where they tightened a workflow: rebuilt a spreadsheet tracker, standardised a request form, wrote an SOP or checklist, reduced equipment downtime or reordering delays.
Evidence to listen for
Has changed a process rather than only following one
Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
Documents so the improvement survives them
Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.
2
Needs Improvement
Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.
3
Satisfactory
Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.
4
Very Good
Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.
5
Excellent
Describes a specific procedure they redesigned, plus the before and after in hours saved, errors avoided, or downtime cut.
03
Evaluation factor
Judgement and autonomy
25% weight
Test decision boundaries: when they escalate a faulty instrument versus attempting a fix, how they prioritise competing requests from engineers, handling out-of-spec results or missing paperwork.
Evidence to listen for
Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.
2
Needs Improvement
Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.
3
Satisfactory
Sound judgement on familiar decisions.
4
Very Good
Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.
5
Excellent
Draws clear lines on what they resolve alone versus escalate, citing a real judgement call and how the supervisor was briefed.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication
15% weight
Assess how they brief technical and non-technical colleagues: handover notes, fault reports to suppliers, chasing purchase orders, explaining equipment status to lab or workshop staff.
Evidence to listen for
Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
Works across time zones or async where the role needs it
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.
3
Satisfactory
Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.
4
Very Good
Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.
5
Excellent
Writes concise, dated handovers and fault reports; confirms details in writing and flags slipping timelines before anyone asks.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
